I like it that you place a number of different eras on your list, doesn't matter the order.

For the men I think Connors and Kramer could be considered as well as a few others.

The mens is much harder than the womens since there are about 20 men worthy of top 10 all time. Connors, Kramer, Hoad, Perry, and possibly McEnroe, Vines, Cochet, LaCoste, Agassi, are worthy as well. It is tough to narrow it down to just 10.

The womens is pretty easy to pick a top 10. The order can be debated but those 10 are clearly the top 10 (or should be, silly Tennis Channel rankings which had Henin and Venus in the top 10 aside).

1. My personal opinion is that Sampras's sheer level of play in his prime was slightly higher than prime Federer on most surfaces- fast hard courts, indoor, carpet, grass, possibly medium hard courts. I am far from the only one who thinks this. John McEnroe, Bud Collins, and Martina Navratilova have all said this as well (this despite McEnroe has also called Federer the GOAT, lol)

2. I believe Sampras's 6 straight year end #1s and 7 Wimbledons are better records and will both last longer than Federer's 16 slams.

3. I believe Sampras played in a deeper era with tougher competition. Despite this he lasted as long or longer at the top as Federer, and won nearly as many slams.

4. Sampras eclipsed all his arch rivals by a good margin, including all time greats such as Agassi and Becker. Federer is the lapdog of the other best player of his era who is also another of the all time greats.

If you are entitled such opinions as:

- Djokovic would need 6 Australian Opens to be considered as good as Federer there who only has 4

-Nadal isnt as good a hard court player as Davydenko who never made a hard court slam final

-Nadal has NO chance to ever again beat Djokovic on either clay or grass, stated only months ago

-Australian and U.S Open Champion and runner up, Olympic Champion, many times Masters winner on hard courts Nadal is a mediocre hard court player

then I am certainly entitled the opinion Sampras can rank over Federer, which is 20x less absurd than the various nonsense such as the above you freely state almost daily.

I believe Sampras's 6 straight year end #1s and 7 Wimbledons are better records and will both last longer than Federer's 16 slams.

I got a question about this, very often people bring up 6 *straight* year end #1s as Sampras record instead of merely 6 overall years ending at #1 (as in saying he ended one more year as #1 than Fed), if that's the case then shouldn't Fed winning combined 5 straight USOs and Wimbledons be considered a record as well even though he shares the achievement of winning individually 5 straight Wimbledons and 5 straight USOs ?

What I mean to say is, Fed's not the only one who won 5 Wimbledons or 5 USOs in a row but he's the only one (to my knowledge atleast) who did both. I personally find that much more impressive than his slam SF streak for example.

Also when comparing just Fed and Sampras, if Sampras ending 6 straight years as #1 is brought up in his favour then I think Fed winning 5 straight USOs and Wimbledon can be used to argue in Fed's favour, afterall Borg winning 5 straight Wimbledons was in his time regarded as one of the most impressive feats in tennis ever according to some sources here.

There's also the question of weeks at #1, Sampras holds the record for overall weeks at #1 while Fed holds the record for consecutive weeks at #1.

How much extra value should be given to x year's in a row/consecutive/straight achievements?

I got a question about this, very often people bring up 6 *straight* year end #1s as Sampras record instead of merely 6 overall years ending at #1 (as in saying he ended one more year as #1 than Fed), if that's the case then shouldn't Fed winning combined 5 straight USOs and Wimbledons be considered a record as well even though he shares the achievement of winning individually 5 straight Wimbledons and 5 straight USOs ?

What I mean to say is, Fed's not the only one who won 5 Wimbledons or 5 USOs in a row but he's the only one (to my knowledge atleast) who did both. I personally find that much more impressive than his slam SF streak for example.

Also when comparing just Fed and Sampras, if Sampras ending 6 straight years as #1 is brought up in his favour then I think Fed winning 5 straight USOs and Wimbledon can be used to argue in Fed's favour, afterall Borg winning 5 straight Wimbledons was in his time regarded as one of the most impressive feats in tennis ever according to some sources here.

There's also the question of weeks at #1, Sampras holds the record for overall weeks at #1 while Fed holds the record for consecutive weeks at #1.

How much extra value should be given to x year's in a row/consecutive/straight achievements?

I think a lot of it has to do with any sports regular season. A team may have a 14 game lead for a good portion of the regular season but end up losing at the end by one game. Leading means nothing if you don't finish first at the end.

Sampras' achievement was very impressive because he was regarded as having the best year for six consecutive years. He may have been behind at certain points of the year but the end result was that he finished number one.

Federer's achievement is an achievement of consistency. His winning was at a higher level than anyone else for many consecutive weeks. Is it more impressive than Sampras? I'm not sure.

1. My personal opinion is that Sampras's sheer level of play in his prime was slightly higher than prime Federer on most surfaces- fast hard courts, indoor, carpet, grass, possibly medium hard courts. I am far from the only one who thinks this. John McEnroe, Bud Collins, and Martina Navratilova have all said this as well (this despite McEnroe has also called Federer the GOAT, lol)

2. I believe Sampras's 6 straight year end #1s and 7 Wimbledons are better records and will both last longer than Federer's 16 slams.

3. I believe Sampras played in a deeper era with tougher competition. Despite this he lasted as long or longer at the top as Federer, and won nearly as many slams.

Saved me a lot of time by stating clearly that these are your beliefs. Appreciate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

4. Sampras eclipsed all his arch rivals by a good margin, including all time greats such as Agassi and Becker. Federer is the lapdog of the other best player of his era who is also another of the all time greats.

Yea too bad Sampras was Krajicek's b***h. I've explained the Federer-Nadal H2H in full detail, not gonna repeat it for individuals who's ulterior motive is to belittle Federer's achievements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

If you are entitled such opinions as:

- Djokovic would need 6 Australian Opens to be considered as good as Federer there who only has 4

Lies. He needs 5 to eclipse Federer. 6 would tie him with Emerson.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

-Nadal isnt as good a hard court player as Davydenko who never made a hard court slam final

Davydenko is fundamentally a better HCer than Ralph. Ralph at his core is a dirtballer who's clay game translates to the hardcourts thanks to the slow high bouncing HCs which the officials made for profit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

-Nadal has NO chance to ever again beat Djokovic on either clay or grass, stated only months ago

He got handsomely thrashed in 2 consecutive clay masters without winning a set,was lucky to avoid Djokovic in the finals of RG and got his a** handed to him in the Wimby final against a debutant finalist who's worst surface is grass. Having said all that, it's still your overactive imagination wrecking havoc with your mind. Never was my opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

-Australian and U.S Open Champion and runner up, Olympic Champion, many times Masters winner on hard courts Nadal is a mediocre hard court player

He sure is for reasons already explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

then I am certainly entitled the opinion Sampras can rank over Federer, which is 20x less absurd than the various nonsense such as the above you freely state almost daily.

You know, Rod Laver recently published his own top 10 all time for the men split into pre-open and open eras. It seemed to me that his opinions were based as much, or more, on peak level of play than on average level of play for an entire career. As such, Laver picked Lew Hoad as the #1 pre-open player. Clearly, his peak level of play was arguably the best in any era. But, both Gonzales and Rosewall had better careers. Both are important, and I don't have any method of quantifying, or justifying, the balance of one in favor of, or equal to, another, or whether that balance should be applied equally to all players. And, of course, you have to make an adjustment for the differences in equipment, which is the most difficult consideration of all, IMO.

Having said that, here are my lists (which are subject to change without notice), based on my perception of greatness given both peak level of play and career achievments some, if not equal, consideration:

You know, Rod Laver recently published his own top 10 all time for the men split into pre-open and open eras. It seemed to me that his opinions were based as much, or more, on peak level of play than on average level of play for an entire career. As such, Laver picked Lew Hoad as the #1 pre-open player. Clearly, his peak level of play was arguably the best in any era. But, both Gonzales and Rosewall had better careers. Both are important, and I don't have any method of quantifying, or justifying, the balance of one in favor of, or equal to, another, or whether that balance should be applied equally to all players. And, of course, you have to make an adjustment for the differences in equipment, which is the most difficult consideration of all, IMO.

Having said that, here are my lists (which are subject to change without notice), based on my perception of greatness given both peak level of play and career achievments some, if not equal, consideration:

For the women, it's easy for me to pick Seles. At her peak, Navratilova described getting beat by her as "getting run over by a truck." I couldn't agree more.

Interesting. I would say highest peak level (not greatest or best as there is much more to consider than just, just pure peak level play) would be by surface Venus on grass with Navratilova a close second and Graf a close third. On clay would be Evert first with Seles a close second and Navratilova a close third (some might laugh at the last part but Navratilova of 1984 which was her clay court peak was scary, she throttled Evert a couple times). On rebound ace Seles first, Serena second, and Hingis third. On plexicushion Serena obviously, but hardly counts anyway as only players the last 5 years got to play on it much. On decoturf Seles or Serena first, and Navratilova a close third. On carpet Seles or Navratilova first, and Henin third (her level at the 2006 and 2007 WTA Championships was extraordinary, I am not sure why but when in the zone she seems to love carpet like she loves clay). So overall I would say Seles with Serena a close runner up, just as far as peak play. If each player had to play on their worst surface at their peak though I would pick Graf, with Navratilova, Court, or Evert as my backups, as I wouldnt want to send Seles on grass or Serena on clay out there in an all time field even at their best.

Interesting. I would say highest peak level (not greatest or best as there is much more to consider than just, just pure peak level play) would be by surface Venus on grass with Navratilova a close second and Graf a close third. On clay would be Evert first with Seles a close second and Navratilova a close third (some might laugh at the last part but Navratilova of 1984 which was her clay court peak was scary, she throttled Evert a couple times). On rebound ace Seles first, Serena second, and Hingis third. On plexicushion Serena obviously, but hardly counts anyway as only players the last 5 years got to play on it much. On decoturf Seles or Serena first, and Navratilova a close third. On carpet Seles or Navratilova first, and Henin third (her level at the 2006 and 2007 WTA Championships was extraordinary, I am not sure why but when in the zone she seems to love carpet like she loves clay). So overall I would say Seles with Serena a close runner up, just as far as peak play. If each player had to play on their worst surface at their peak though I would pick Graf, with Navratilova, Court, or Evert as my backups, as I wouldnt want to send Seles on grass or Serena on clay out there in an all time field even at their best.

I would agree with you about Venus W. peak play on grass possibly being the best tennis ever played. Her serve was the best ever, for a short time. Her movement was the best ever, period, her groundies were huge, and she was a great player under presssure.

But, IMO, Seles on hard and clay, at her peak, was the best tennis played on those surfaces, including Evert. She didn't have Evert's longevity, and probably wouldn't have even if she weren't stabbed. But, peak Seles would prevail over peak Evert, even on clay, IMO, and everyone else on hard.